Balto-Slavic or Slavic was always spoken in Central,Eastern and South Eastern Europe by majority depends in which form the language was changing in it's history,but it's old and stable in it's zone less or more 3000 years.
Last edited:
Palasgians, pre Ancient Greeks...would their DNA be E-V13?
- Thread starter noUseForAname
- Start date
Balto-Slavic or Slavic was always spoken in Central,Eastern and South Eastern Europe by majority depends in which form the language was changing in it's history,but it's old and stable in it's zone less or more 3000 years.
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
You "cant say" are your some kind of Scientist?
read below some science please
The most parsimonious and scientific explanation is that Albanians hav been in that area since at least the Bronze Age. Anything else is just more Balkan obfuscation for ethnic partisanship and an attempt to make the Albanians and anyone else who carries it "foreign" to the area when in fact it is the "Slavs" and whatever yDna they carried who are the most recent arrivals
By far the highest rates of IBD within any populations is found between Albanian speakers—around 90 ancestors from 0–500 ya, and around 600 ancestors from 500–1,500 ya (so high that we left them out of Figure 5; see Figure S12). Beyond 1,500 ya, the rates of IBD drop to levels typical for other populations in the eastern grouping.
The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.
The migration period.
One of the striking patterns we see is the relatively high level of sharing of IBD between pairs of individuals across eastern Europe, as high or higher than that observed within other, much smaller populations. This is consistent with these individuals having a comparatively large proportion of ancestry drawn from a relatively small population that expanded over a large geographic area. The “smooth” estimates of Figure 4 (and more generally Figures 5 and S17) suggest that this increase in ancestry stems from around 1,000–2,000 ya, since during this time pairs of eastern individuals are expected to share a substantial number of common ancestors, while this is only true of pairs of noneastern individuals if they are from the same population. For example, even individuals from widely separated eastern populations share about the same amount of IBD as do two Irish individuals (see Figure S3), suggesting that this ancestral population may have been relatively small.This evidence is consistent with the idea that these populations derive a substantial proportion of their ancestry from various groups that expanded during the “migration period” from the fourth through ninth centuries [51]. This period begins with the Huns moving into eastern Europe towards the end of the fourth century, establishing an empire including modern-day Hungary and Romania, and continues in the fifth century as various Germanic groups moved into and ruled much of the western Roman empire. This was followed by the expansion of the Slavic populations into regions of low population density beginning in the sixth century, reaching their maximum by the 10th century [52]. The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion. The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking) Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of other groups (e.g., the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with unknown demographic effect), or because of subsequent population exchange. However, additional work and methods would be needed to verify this hypothesis.
For instance, we could argue that the high degree of shared common ancestry among Albanian speakers was because most of these sampled originated from a small area rather than uniformly across Albania and Kosovo. However, this would not explain the high rate of IBD between Albanian speakers and neighboring populations. Even populations from which we only have one or two samples, which we at first assumed would be unusably noisy, provide generally reliable, consistent patterns, as evidenced by, for example, Figure S3.
bottom row is 2550-4335 years ago, you can see that Albanian is the red colour and sufficiently at the very high percentage then the others at 2550-4335 years ago.
i suppose proto-slavs (majority R1a as per Maciamo) at that time 4,300 weren't even still in high numbers at today Polad, bur rather located in today west Russia and north Belarus.
Therefore as the study argues Slavs are the most recent arrivals.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555
Proto-Slavic- unnatested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages and there is Slavic speaking group.You "cant say" are your some kind of Scientist?
read below some science please
The most parsimonious and scientific explanation is that Albanians hav been in that area since at least the Bronze Age. Anything else is just more Balkan obfuscation for ethnic partisanship and an attempt to make the Albanians and anyone else who carries it "foreign" to the area when in fact it is the "Slavs" and whatever yDna they carried who are the most recent arrivals
By far the highest rates of IBD within any populations is found between Albanian speakers—around 90 ancestors from 0–500 ya, and around 600 ancestors from 500–1,500 ya (so high that we left them out of Figure 5; see Figure S12). Beyond 1,500 ya, the rates of IBD drop to levels typical for other populations in the eastern grouping.
The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.
The migration period.
One of the striking patterns we see is the relatively high level of sharing of IBD between pairs of individuals across eastern Europe, as high or higher than that observed within other, much smaller populations. This is consistent with these individuals having a comparatively large proportion of ancestry drawn from a relatively small population that expanded over a large geographic area. The “smooth” estimates of Figure 4 (and more generally Figures 5 and S17) suggest that this increase in ancestry stems from around 1,000–2,000 ya, since during this time pairs of eastern individuals are expected to share a substantial number of common ancestors, while this is only true of pairs of noneastern individuals if they are from the same population. For example, even individuals from widely separated eastern populations share about the same amount of IBD as do two Irish individuals (see Figure S3), suggesting that this ancestral population may have been relatively small.This evidence is consistent with the idea that these populations derive a substantial proportion of their ancestry from various groups that expanded during the “migration period” from the fourth through ninth centuries [51]. This period begins with the Huns moving into eastern Europe towards the end of the fourth century, establishing an empire including modern-day Hungary and Romania, and continues in the fifth century as various Germanic groups moved into and ruled much of the western Roman empire. This was followed by the expansion of the Slavic populations into regions of low population density beginning in the sixth century, reaching their maximum by the 10th century [52]. The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion. The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking) Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of other groups (e.g., the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with unknown demographic effect), or because of subsequent population exchange. However, additional work and methods would be needed to verify this hypothesis.
For instance, we could argue that the high degree of shared common ancestry among Albanian speakers was because most of these sampled originated from a small area rather than uniformly across Albania and Kosovo. However, this would not explain the high rate of IBD between Albanian speakers and neighboring populations. Even populations from which we only have one or two samples, which we at first assumed would be unusably noisy, provide generally reliable, consistent patterns, as evidenced by, for example, Figure S3.
View attachment 7280
bottom row is 2550-4335 years ago, you can see that Albanian is the red colour and sufficiently at the very high percentage then the others at 2550-4335 years ago.
i suppose proto-slavs (majority R1a as per Maciamo) at that time 4,300 weren't even still in high numbers at today Polad, bur rather located in today west Russia and north Belarus.
Therefore as the study argues Slavs are the most recent arrivals.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555
Last edited:
noUseForAname
Do not make quick conclusions on the basis of one or two articles.
You made four mistaken conclusions based on article of Lazaridis et al.
You said that based on this articles Albanians are 10,000 years in the Balkans.
No. Wrong.
You can read #253 (and earlier) and #276.
And today in the another thread:
You should be thanking me what I pointed out some your misconceptions. I put some free time and effort to explain.
...
What is point. This matter is very complex and multidisciplinary, it requires a lot of knowledge from different disciplines, and it goes beyond the knowledge of one person. Many many studies in many different sciences are required to come up with some proper conclusions. One half-cocked conclusion today can be wrong tomorrow because new studies arrive.
Do not make quick conclusions on the basis of one or two articles.
You made four mistaken conclusions based on article of Lazaridis et al.
You said that based on this articles Albanians are 10,000 years in the Balkans.
No. Wrong.
You can read #253 (and earlier) and #276.
And today in the another thread:
You should be thanking me what I pointed out some your misconceptions. I put some free time and effort to explain.
...
What is point. This matter is very complex and multidisciplinary, it requires a lot of knowledge from different disciplines, and it goes beyond the knowledge of one person. Many many studies in many different sciences are required to come up with some proper conclusions. One half-cocked conclusion today can be wrong tomorrow because new studies arrive.
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
Study gives percentages of those populations who have near eastern component
Sardinian Albanian and Greek has nothing to do with (at least not before 10,000 ybp) with near eastern component, or they might have the very very lowest % then the rest of populations from the source.
You are either not understanding English (not reading my sources) or you just don't want to be reasonable. Those that they have near eastern component (highest %) are Maltese, Sicilian, ashkenazi jews (read below)
If so than why would the scientists put Sardinian (90%) Albanian and Greek to the top for Early European Farmers (10,000 ybp)?
Its all about amount of percentages as for sure everyone would have slight mixtures.
Check the Figure S9.27 (pg 124) please, Albanians have:
0% Beduine (Which is of Near Eastern component)
77% EN (Early Neolithic European)
2.2% Nagasan
3.3% WHG
17.5% Yanmaya
Fig. S9.24 shows that when WHG admixture is added to EN, residuals for most European populations are reduced, consistent with most Europeans not being descended from EN farmers of Europe. Four populations indicate no change in residuals: Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers 2,7-9,12 with an estimated ~ 90% descent from them. Albanians are second and Greeks third
(ref. 2 and Fig. S9.23b), while Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, and Sicilians may have Near Eastern admixture not mediated via early European farmers2.
Table S9.3: Populations that improve resnorm for European outlier populations when added to a model of EN/WHG/EHG admixture as a 4th ancestral population. We show the top 20 populations that reduce resnorm the most when added to the mixture model. For Maltese, Sicilians, and Ashkenazi Jews these populations tend to be from the Middle East and North Africa
Maltese Sicilian Ashkenazi Jew
4th anc. pop. resnorm 4th anc. pop. resnorm 4th anc. pop.resnorm
Moroccan_Jew 0.000006 Turkish_Jew 0.000006 Cypriot 0.000006
Lebanese 0.000010 Cypriot 0.000006 Iraqi_Jew 0.000018
Syrian 0.000010 Moroccan_Jew 0.000009 Turkish_Jew 0.000018
Tunisian_Jew 0.000011 Druze 0.000012 Moroccan_Jew 0.000020
Saudi 0.000014 Iraqi_Jew 0.000012 Druze 0.000025
Turkish_Jew 0.000016 Syrian 0.000014 Lebanese 0.000027
Libyan_Jew 0.000017 Lebanese 0.000016 Syrian 0.000028
Jordanian 0.000017 Tunisian_Jew 0.000019 Tunisian_Jew 0.000037
Palestinian 0.000019 Saudi 0.000021 Saudi 0.000039
Druze 0.000022 Jordanian 0.000022 Iranian_Jew 0.000039
Yemenite_Jew 0.000022 Libyan_Jew0.000025 Jordanian 0.000039
BedouinB 0.000022 Palestinian 0.000026 Palestinian 0.000044
BedouinA 0.000023 BedouinB 0.000027 Libyan_Jew 0.000044
Tunisian 0.000024 Yemenite_Jew 0.000028 Yemenite_Jew 0.000045
Mozabite 0.000024 Tunisian 0.000028 BedouinB 0.000045
Algerian 0.000025 Mozabite 0.000028 BedouinA 0.000046
Egyptian 0.000025 BedouinA 0.000028 Tunisian 0.000046
Saharawi 0.000026 Egyptian 0.000028 Egyptian 0.000046
Yemen 0.000028 Algerian 0.000029 Mozabite 0.000047
Esan 0.000030 Saharawi 0.000029 Algerian 0.000047
Last edited:
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
I said (as study argues) current populations of Sardinian, Albanian and Greek are de facto a direct descent (with highest % then other populations) from Early Neolithic European farmers (10,000 ybp). (read above for more explanation)
I never said Albanian or greek that they were in Balkans at the year 10,000 ybp with the same names (nationalities) as of now (of course not), however current populations of Sardinian, Albanian and Greek are de facto a direct descent (with highest % then other populations) from Early Neolithic European farmers (10,000 ybp).
I already gave you a lots of facts from above, if you don't want to believe for whatever reason then thats your opinion and i respect that, its just you cannot say "wrong immediately" to a study or to me because i was just representing this study and i wasn't adding anything from my self as per the conclusions above.
And because you are not a scientist if you want to back something then you are welcome to give other studies which criticize the later.
noUseForAname
What do you don't understand.
See these data for two men (I wrote without decimals):
1.
EEF : 84
WHG: 8
ANE: 8
2.
EEF: 91
WHG: 2
ANE: 7
What do you conclude?
...
Model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, it is only first iteration in the way to better, robust models. I wrote why. Don't give wrong conclusions.
...
EEF = ENF + WHG. It will be sequenced ENF, but it will pass the time.
ENF is Eearly Neolithic Farmers, Near Eastern/European Neolithic farmers
(Nobody spoke about bedouins. Near East in this sense is area which mostly covers Anatolia/Turkey, Southern Caucasus, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq).
We have no sequence a genome or two from the Neolithic Near East. We will know much more when we sequenced genomes across from Western Asia and North Africa and wider.
Newer, better, robusted models will give us much more accurate and better picture. And we can use them.
What do you don't understand.
See these data for two men (I wrote without decimals):
1.
EEF : 84
WHG: 8
ANE: 8
2.
EEF: 91
WHG: 2
ANE: 7
What do you conclude?
...
Model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, it is only first iteration in the way to better, robust models. I wrote why. Don't give wrong conclusions.
...
EEF = ENF + WHG. It will be sequenced ENF, but it will pass the time.
ENF is Eearly Neolithic Farmers, Near Eastern/European Neolithic farmers
(Nobody spoke about bedouins. Near East in this sense is area which mostly covers Anatolia/Turkey, Southern Caucasus, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq).
We have no sequence a genome or two from the Neolithic Near East. We will know much more when we sequenced genomes across from Western Asia and North Africa and wider.
Newer, better, robusted models will give us much more accurate and better picture. And we can use them.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
What do the resnorm statistics of the Maltese, Sicilians, and Ashkenazim have to do with the Albanians?
Also, how could the results shown in S9.27 (in the Supplementary Info of Haak et al, not Lazaridis et al, btw) possibly lead you to believe that they are consistent with most Europeans not being descendents of EN farmers? ALL Europeans have some descent from EEF.
Plus, where do you think the majority of the ancestry of the EEF came from? At least 80% of it came from the Near East. Most likely they embarked for Europe from the area where southeast Anatolia meets the Levant, and are probably in part descended from the Natufians. Do you think this ancestry is different in kind if it came 7,000 years ago with the Neolithic versus 4,000 years ago with the Bronze Age? When it came in the Bronze Age to southern Europe it just was mixed with ANE instead of with some WHG. Maybe a little south central Asian was mixed in too, but the Early Near Eastern farmer portion was the same.
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
Last edited:
noUseForAname
Now you change the subject, again. In the Balkans were hunter gatherers 20,000 years ago and more, and what.
Model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect and it will be replaced with new, more robust model, with more data. Especially when it will be sequenced a genome from the Neolithic Near East, of course and other genomes across Asia and Africa.
But what you tell now has nothing to do with Albanians. Now it seems that once again interfering admixtures with parental markers.
See, we don't know from the model of Lazaridis et al when different populations arrived in the Balkans, nor the model deals wit it. Generally it is stupid to use today's national terms for old times' sake, but it is a different story, and there's no chance to convince you not to associate.
Therefore, if we see what Lazaridis et al find for todays Albanians, it can be much later then you think. I gave admixtures two men what you can conclude, what do you think.
Now you change the subject, again. In the Balkans were hunter gatherers 20,000 years ago and more, and what.
Model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect and it will be replaced with new, more robust model, with more data. Especially when it will be sequenced a genome from the Neolithic Near East, of course and other genomes across Asia and Africa.
But what you tell now has nothing to do with Albanians. Now it seems that once again interfering admixtures with parental markers.
See, we don't know from the model of Lazaridis et al when different populations arrived in the Balkans, nor the model deals wit it. Generally it is stupid to use today's national terms for old times' sake, but it is a different story, and there's no chance to convince you not to associate.
Therefore, if we see what Lazaridis et al find for todays Albanians, it can be much later then you think. I gave admixtures two men what you can conclude, what do you think.
You're big Balto-Slavic promoter here.
You can see, first Balto-Slavic is created, 0:23.
And Albanian originated from Balto-Slavic, 0:29.
Yes, there is a theory that Albanian is branch of Balto-Slavic, of course Albanian is Satem as Balto-Slavic and they have a lot of similarity.
But I think facts that Albanian is close to Balto-Slavic languages (Dacian, Thracian, modern Slavic and Baltic languages etc.) is because modern Albanian created in Romania probably between 4 and 6 century. A lot of Balto-Slavic/Dacian/Thracian words and of course Eastern Latin (Romanian) entered in Albanian in that time.
Russel Gray and Quentin Atkinson still be right that Albanian have same root as Iranian (and Indic) languages. My assumption is that proto Albanian is created somewhere between speakers of Armenian and speakers of North Iranian languages. Probably in Caucasus or near (maybe Eastern Anatolia or Northern Iran).
Piro Ilir
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 92
- Points
- 0
Nobody mentioned Greeks and their civilization, which in my opinion has nothing to do with modern Greece. You are the first claiming that Albanians came from south Ukraine or North east Romania. This is something really silly and you know it. At a post above you said Albanians came from Anatolia and at another post you said they came from Caucasus [emoji23]. You need to make clear your mind sir. There is not even a single source mentioning an Albanian migration from Ukraine to illyria nor to epirus (except any silly nationalistic theory) . Genetically and linguistically is proven that Albanians are indigenous in West Balkan, at least BC era. If we study the genetic and the tongues of Balkans populations we will have a clear picture of all the spread of populations throughout Balkans.
[emoji562]
This is your opinion.
No, it is not silly. On the contrary. One of theory is that Albanian created in 4-6 century in Romania. You probably know for Baltic theory and that Albanian is the branch of Balto Slavic. In the video which your college gave you can see that Albanian originate from Balto-Slavic. Albanian has similarities as Balto-Slavic languages, do you know it. And you probably know that Latin words in Albanian came from Romanian (Eastern variant) not from Dalamatian (Western variant). Etc.
But your college and I have other discussion about New Zealand scientists, who give the model in which Albanian has root as Iranian and Indic languages. And according it Proto Albanian could be in the Caucasus or near. According them Greek and Armenian have same root, and Albanian and Iranian and Indic languages same root. Albanian has some familiarity with Armenian, but if their model is appropriate, more with Iranian/Indic. These scientists are very cited, their model is new, and different from traditional model. Yes, they claim about Anatolian hypothesis, that Proto Indo European originated in Anatolia (contrary from Kurgan hypothesis).
If they are right it is possible that movement of Proto Albanian speakers people were: Caucasus-area near Black Sea-South Ukraine/Moldavia/Romania. There are people in this forum who pointed this. We will see new scientific findings. For now, for me it can be interesting new paper forthcoming:
BALKAN GENETIC SIGNALS IN THE ARMENIAN PATERNAL GENE POOL
http://www.isabs.hr/registration201...iew&id_program=20&id_topic=53&id_abstract=365
From Abstract:
On the whole, our results only partly support the version of Balkan origin of the Armenians, and in contrast to it, mainly indicated Neolithic and post-Neolithic ancient human migrations from the Armenian Highland and the Levant to southern Europe.
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
That was just a reply to Garick because he mentioned that Albanian language is a root or derived from Baluchi from the same study he sourced BY HIMSELF.
Bouckaert et al argues that Serbo Croatian is 900 ybp derived from old church Slavonic around 1,200 ybp and old church Slavonic deriving from Slovenian 1,400 ybp then we have Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp.
This is consistent with the most recent complex dna study that one group (possibility) of PEI spread from Anatolia through the steppe. However we dont know exactly if Ancient Greek language and Albanian came from steppe or (because it was very close to Anatolia) pushed straight to current Greece and Albania (south east Europe).
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
Bouckaert et al argues that Greek and Albanian split 6,000 ybp from Anatolian and balto slavic split 5,700 ybp.
We can see that Slavic languages started at 3,100 ybp as the oldest one being Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp. Consistent with my suppositions that Slavic languages came from the steppe (north).
Therefore we have Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp following Slovenian 1,400 ybp, then 1,200 ybp and old church Slavonic and following Serbo Croatian is 900 ybp
On the other side Bouckaert et al argues that Ancient Greek and Albanian started at around 5,100 ybp as a separate branches (also separate from balto-slavic and Slavic Languages). So my guess is it couldn't had came from the steppe that early since it started around 5,100 ybp but rather coming straight from Anatolia and not all way around north of black sea and threw the steppe.
https://theoreticalecology.wordpres...pansion-of-the-indo-european-language-family/
noUseForAname
Regular Member
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2705
Originally Posted by Garrick
Albanian is a separate branch of Balto-slavic, that is known to everyone and the majority of studies say so (especially the recent ones) (see below)
Bouckaert et al argues that Greek and Albanian split 6,000 ybp from Anatolian and Balto slavic split 5,700 ybp.
We can see that Slavic languages started at 3,100 ybp as the oldest one being Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp. Consistent with my suppositions that Slavic languages came from the steppe (north).
Therefore we have Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp following Slovenian 1,400 ybp, then 1,200 ybp and old church Slavonic and following Serbo Croatian is 900 ybp
On the other side Bouckaert et al argues that Ancient Greek and Albanian started at around 5,100 ybp as a separate branches (also separate from balto-slavic and Slavic Languages). So my guess is it couldn't had came from the steppe that early since it started around 5,100 ybp but rather coming straight from Anatolia and not all way around north of black sea and threw the steppe.
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/
This is consistent with the most recent complex dna study that (possibility) of PEI spread from Anatolia through the steppe. However we dont know exactly if Ancient Greek language and Albanian came from steppe or (because it was very close to Anatolia) pushed straight to far south east Europe.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf
Oh now your saying modern Albanian (because you were saying that proto Albanian originated from Caucus Area not even 1,000 ybp). You think that proto Albanians came with Ottoman turks who picked them as slaves from Caucus area?
Ancient Greek and Albanian started at around 5,100 ybp (south east Europe) as a separate branches (also separate from balto-slavic and Slavic Languages) thousands of years ago before Dscians and Thracian names came in, therefore they are out of the Context here.
Seems like (from the same source you placed) you haven't even read the source when you said that Albanian language derives from Baluchi 2.500 ybp when Albanian is 6,500 ybp. Even before indic/Iranian which is 4,600 ybp.
according to the study these are all separate branches (separating straight from Anatolia) (from older to recent) are: Anatolian, Tocharian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Iranian (Indo-Iranian), Indic (indo-Iranian), Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic.....
Therefore don't give false interpretations of the same study you are sourcing please.
https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/tuitekj/MonDepotPublic/cours/IE/GrayAtkinson.pdf
Albanian is a separate branch of Balto-slavic, that is known to everyone and the majority of studies say so (especially the recent ones) (see below)
Bouckaert et al argues that Greek and Albanian split 6,000 ybp from Anatolian and Balto slavic split 5,700 ybp.
We can see that Slavic languages started at 3,100 ybp as the oldest one being Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp. Consistent with my suppositions that Slavic languages came from the steppe (north).
Therefore we have Lithuanian (north steppe region) 1,900 ybp following Slovenian 1,400 ybp, then 1,200 ybp and old church Slavonic and following Serbo Croatian is 900 ybp
On the other side Bouckaert et al argues that Ancient Greek and Albanian started at around 5,100 ybp as a separate branches (also separate from balto-slavic and Slavic Languages). So my guess is it couldn't had came from the steppe that early since it started around 5,100 ybp but rather coming straight from Anatolia and not all way around north of black sea and threw the steppe.
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/
This is consistent with the most recent complex dna study that (possibility) of PEI spread from Anatolia through the steppe. However we dont know exactly if Ancient Greek language and Albanian came from steppe or (because it was very close to Anatolia) pushed straight to far south east Europe.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf
Oh now your saying modern Albanian (because you were saying that proto Albanian originated from Caucus Area not even 1,000 ybp). You think that proto Albanians came with Ottoman turks who picked them as slaves from Caucus area?
Ancient Greek and Albanian started at around 5,100 ybp (south east Europe) as a separate branches (also separate from balto-slavic and Slavic Languages) thousands of years ago before Dscians and Thracian names came in, therefore they are out of the Context here.
Seems like (from the same source you placed) you haven't even read the source when you said that Albanian language derives from Baluchi 2.500 ybp when Albanian is 6,500 ybp. Even before indic/Iranian which is 4,600 ybp.
according to the study these are all separate branches (separating straight from Anatolia) (from older to recent) are: Anatolian, Tocharian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Iranian (Indo-Iranian), Indic (indo-Iranian), Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic.....
Therefore don't give false interpretations of the same study you are sourcing please.
https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/tuitekj/MonDepotPublic/cours/IE/GrayAtkinson.pdf
Lithuanian is not a Slavic language,so attested Serbian predate the language itself nice theory of yours,Old Church Slavonic is made of Slavic Macedonian dialect not Slovene,but i think all languages in Europe evolve from Albanian,it is at least 10000 years old,i hope you are happy now.
I don't think so. I never said this.
What false interpretations?
Before this study I thought that Proto Albanian was the closest to Armenian.
When New Zealand scientists gave their model I corrected this opinion.
Now I think that speakers of Proto Albanian were somewhere between speakers of Armenian and speakers of North Iranian languages, in the Caucasus or near (East Anatolia, Northern Iran). It is possible that Proto Albanian is closer to forerunners of North Iranian languages than Armenian.
I mentioned Baluchi and Singhalese only in the context of their model and the picture they gave:
Everyone can see according their model: Greek and Armenian have same root; Albanian and Iranian and Indic language have same root (of course distance of separation is long); Baltic and Slavic languages have same root; Celtic, Germanic, Italic languages have same root. And of course all IE languages have same root. And they all separate branches.
Yes, they are proponents of Anatolian hypothesis, Proto Indo European originated in Neolithic Anatolia (different than Kurgan hypothesis). If their hypothesis has real base I think that J2a carriers played much more role in creating IE languages, not only R (R1a and R1b) carriers.
I don't know when speakers of Proto Albanian moved from Caucasus or near to Southern Ukraine/Moldavia/Romania. It could be a long process. Maybe trace is different than I (and some members in the forum) mention.
Dacian theories tell us that modern Albanian created in Romania in new era, started from 2nd century. According them Albanians come very late in the areas today's Albania, till 10 century, one of possible interpretation is in the picture:
Dacian and Baltic Slavic theories are much more based on facts in comparing with mythical fictional theories about Illyrian or Pelasgian or Ancient Egyptian etc. origin of Albanian.
...
Dacian and Baltic Slavic theories however, don't say us how Albanian speakers came to Carpathian mountains and Romania and where is created Proto Albanian.
This thread has been viewed 327389 times.